You are here

Security Cases

On June 23, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for DOE access authorization should not be granted. The individual was $16,941 past due on his primary mortgage, had an outstanding collection account that was $98 past due, had admitted during a September 16, 2015, personnel security interview that his financial difficulties were the result of being financially irresponsible, by overspending and not living within his means, and had admitted that he had not made any payments on his outstanding second mortgage for seven month

On June 22, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criteria H, J and L regarding three Driving While Intoxicated arrests and two opinions from a DOE psychologist that the individual suffers from Alcohol Abuse. The individual submitted evidence of his completion of an alcohol awareness course and his ongoing participation in a peer support treatment program.

On June 21, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns arising from her failure to file her federal and state income taxes for the years 2013 and 2014. The individual testified that she separated from her abusive ex-husband in 2010, leaving her with substantial credit card debt. In 2013, the individual lowered the amount of withholding that the IRS was taking from her pay check

On June 21, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. Following the arrest of a co-worker, the individual undertook several actions which led to the LSO suspending her access authorization due to security concerns arising under Criterion L.

On June 20, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's access authorization should be granted. In October 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns about his gambling. In addition to the PSI, the LSO requested the individual’s medical records and recommended a psychological evaluation of the individual by a DOE psychologist. According to the DOE psychologist, the individual suffers from Gambling Disorder. The DOE psych

On June 7, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision restoring an individual’s access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria H, and J regarding an evaluative report issued by a DOE psychologist indicating that the individual suffered from Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate, (Major Depressive Disorder) and Alcohol Use Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (Alcohol Use Disorder).

On June 3, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criteria H, J and L regarding his three DUI arrests, an opinion from a DOE psychologist that the individual suffered from Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Use Disorder, and the individual’s failure to fulfill his commitment made during in an earlier 2000 administrative hearing to permanently abstain from alcohol.

On June 2, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored. According to the Notification Letter, the individual had been arrested in 2015 for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated. The individual previously had two other alcohol-related arrests in 2010, when he was 19 years old. A DOE psychologist determined that the individual suffered from Alcohol Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, and had concerns about his lack of candor in reporting his alcohol consumption, particularly preceding the 2015 ar

On June 2, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his alcohol abuse diagnosis. The individual and his witnesses testified that he has not used alcohol since five days after his arrest for Driving While Under the Influence in June 2015. He entered and completed an outpatient treatment program. In addition, he is attending aftercare and counseling. His

On May 26, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his unpaid federal and state taxes. The local security office determined the individual had not filed his 2010-2014 taxes. At the hearing, the individual did not dispute this finding but testified that he had filed his 2015 taxes on time. However, as of the date of the hearing, the individual still had